Pershing buff?

It would be cool, yeah, but it would not change my attitude towards the tank. As we have already established, the tank is already an AI beast.

I still think that from the 4 vs 4 team games perspective the upgrade, no matter how expensive, is definitely worth at least trying out. I do acknowledge that in the end I might say that it's not necessary too, however at this point I am reluctant to do so

It might not be a big upgrade, but there definitely should be the option to do it. I do not get why it isn´t already there.

Jackson also got powerful buff recently - not needing a scout is super important for a TD, it also allows for some a-move here and there.

Jackson sight is equal to range of all tanks.
Its no advantage in any way really.

I wouldn't mind a cost increase if they increased it's durability to more acceptable "heavy" levels, I often think that 2 Shermans can do the AI job of the Pershing much better, as you will eventually want to tech Major and support your M26 with more armor anyway.

Jackson sight is equal to range of all tanks.
Its no advantage in any way really.

There are exactly two "tanks" (they actually aren't tanks) in the game with a sight range of 40, the Jackson and the Jagdpanzer IV, all other vehicles of a similar role have less (scouting vehicles are of course exempted from that comparison). The only vehicles to have a higher gun range than the Jackson's 60 are the Elefant and the ISU-152 (both sitting at 70). In fact, the Ostheer's only anti-armour vehicle to have a gun range of more than 50 is the Elefant.

There are exactly two "tanks" (they actually aren't tanks) in the game with a sight range of 40, the Jackson and the Jagdpanzer IV, all other vehicles of a similar role have less (scouting vehicles are of course exempted from that comparison). The only vehicles to have a higher gun range than the Jackson's 60 are the Elefant and the ISU-152 (both sitting at 70). In fact, the Ostheer's only anti-armour vehicle to have a gun range of more than 50 is the Elefant.

But that doesn't fit the Axis need nerfs narrative!

If you want it to have more survivability, then nerf it's AOE. It is too potent at sniping units, especially grens and pgrens.

this.

the pershing have a devastating AOE combined with fragile axis infantry squad. Buffing the pershing's durability would require changing its current role.

this.

the pershing have a devastating AOE combined with fragile axis infantry squad. Buffing the pershing's durability would require changing its current role.

And what is its current role, then?

If AI, then this is why people do not use it often. USF is already good AI and thus I suggested an armor upgrade. Why make another unit that would handle infantry if that's entirely not what USF struggles with?

This argument seems to prove that people do not treat the Pershing as a Heavy AT.

There are exactly two "tanks" (they actually aren't tanks) in the game with a sight range of 40, the Jackson and the Jagdpanzer IV, all other vehicles of a similar role have less (scouting vehicles are of course exempted from that comparison). The only vehicles to have a higher gun range than the Jackson's 60 are the Elefant and the ISU-152 (both sitting at 70). In fact, the Ostheer's only anti-armour vehicle to have a gun range of more than 50 is the Elefant.

Incorrect.

JPIV is 45 sight range. Jackson gets 45 at vet 2 (although other vehicles get sight as vet as well)
Command PV has 50 sight range at vet 0. Same with Tiger Ace at 50.
British cheats it with the tank commander (non brainer upgrade).

Jadgtiger has 85 range. KV2 on indirect has 70 (IIRC).

OKW both variants of Panther can get/give +5 range with vet.

This is an extra, but there are some skillshots which surpass the basic attack range of the main gun. Same with certain abilities (Combined arms or hulldown).

Anyways, the Jackson extra 10 sight range is only meant to avoid been "flanked".


Regarding the Pershing:
It probably sees less use, the higher the amount of players involved. On the same way JT are not meant for 1v1, the Pershing is probably not a tank for 4v4. I think the tanks is fine.
Some people might want an improved health pool (800 to 960) but i think AoE should be tweaked if that's the case.

Regarding the Pershing:
It probably sees less use, the higher the amount of players involved. On the same way JT are not meant for 1v1, the Pershing is probably not a tank for 4v4. I think the tanks is fine.
Some people might want an improved health pool (800 to 960) but i think AoE should be tweaked if that's the case.

Not sure if I understand correctly, but how tweaking its AoE would buff it?

Actually, if we establish, that Pershing is probably not a good tank for 4 vs 4, this leads us to a conclusion, that USF is probably not a good faction for 4 vs 4 unless playing a support role. Pershing was initially meant to be a spearhead with more armor, a USF damage sponge. If not Pershing, then what would help the USF late game? One might say: "Jackson's sight (although still being in discussion ), M10 spam umm... that's it? In terms of tanks, there is not much we can do about German lates.

Also if we take into account that JTs are not meant for 1 vs 1 - that's true. But then again Germans have other vehicles like KTs or even non-doctrinal Panthers which are pretty much on equal terms with the Pershing. What I'm saying is that there are alternatives.

Again. I am not trying to whine GERMANS OP PLZ NERF. I am just saying that as it is now USF is troublesome in late game. I always come back to the game after a bitter defeat but after a super long game when I get rolled over by German armor with little chances of pushing them back, I tend to get a bit frustrated

Not sure if I understand correctly, but how tweaking its AoE would buff it?

Actually, if we establish, that Pershing is probably not a good tank for 4 vs 4, this leads us to a conclusion, that USF is probably not a good faction for 4 vs 4 unless playing a support role. Pershing was initially meant to be a spearhead with more armor, a USF damage sponge. If not Pershing, then what would help the USF late game? One might say: "Jackson's sight (although still being in discussion ), M10 spam umm... that's it? In terms of tanks, there is not much we can do about German lates.

Also if we take into account that JTs are not meant for 1 vs 1 - that's true. But then again Germans have other vehicles like KTs or even non-doctrinal Panthers which are pretty much on equal terms with the Pershing. What I'm saying is that there are alternatives.

Again. I am not trying to whine GERMANS OP PLZ NERF. I am just saying that as it is now USF is troublesome in late game. I always come back to the game after a bitter defeat but after a super long game when I get rolled over by German armor with little chances of pushing them back, I tend to get a bit frustrated

he meant buff Hp but nerf aoe

Not sure if I understand correctly, but how tweaking its AoE would buff it?

Actually, if we establish, that Pershing is probably not a good tank for 4 vs 4, this leads us to a conclusion, that USF is probably not a good faction for 4 vs 4 unless playing a support role. Pershing was initially meant to be a spearhead with more armor, a USF damage sponge. If not Pershing, then what would help the USF late game? One might say: "Jackson's sight (although still being in discussion ), M10 spam umm... that's it? In terms of tanks, there is not much we can do about German lates.

Also if we take into account that JTs are not meant for 1 vs 1 - that's true. But then again Germans have other vehicles like KTs or even non-doctrinal Panthers which are pretty much on equal terms with the Pershing. What I'm saying is that there are alternatives.

Again. I am not trying to whine GERMANS OP PLZ NERF. I am just saying that as it is now USF is troublesome in late game. I always come back to the game after a bitter defeat but after a super long game when I get rolled over by German armor with little chances of pushing them back, I tend to get a bit frustrated

Even if we agree that usf is weak late game in team games then buffing pershing is not the solution - simply becouse that would couse everybody to choose one doctrine and nobody wants that. The wider the meta the better for the game.

Not to mention that usf late game isn't weak, its just hyper micro intensive. But it can do wonders in right hands. Its just too many vehicles to controll at once for average player...

he meant buff Hp but nerf aoe

Then I agree. A bit less AI potential and a bit more AT chances.

Standard pershing has very few documented battle usages during ww2. The super pershing is absolutely out of question. If you find anything telling you about battle usage of super pershing its pure propaganda.

There were much more Pershings in Europe than there were Ostwinds and Jagtigers in existance.

But of course those among a few others just pass under the radar.

Both the Tiger 1 and the M26 deserve some buffs in their current situations.

Even if we agree that usf is weak late game in team games then buffing pershing is not the solution - simply becouse that would couse everybody to choose one doctrine and nobody wants that. The wider the meta the better for the game.

Not to mention that usf late game isn't weak, its just hyper micro intensive. But it can do wonders in right hands. Its just too many vehicles to controll at once for average player...

I do not think that would cause everyone to choose one commander. Actually it would be incredibly stupid if people tried that. My intent was not to make it a super tank that would withstand all German shells and be OP as hell. It's not about making a King Tiger with a painted white star on the side. It's a matter of an HP boost, whatever the amount - I have not come up with a certain number yet. Hence this discussion.

I agree that USF is super micro intensive. You can leave American tanks for a short while when microing other stuff and in a matter of seconds they will be turned to dust. I have already come to terms with this fact and I am always trying to prevent this as much as possible. However, having Pershing in my army composition does not change this very much as it still gets a beating even from a Panther and that is slightly disconcerting.

On a side note. I like how there's 23 votes for "Definitely not" and only a handful of people discuss their choices on this thread

And what is its current role, then?

If AI, then this is why people do not use it often. USF is already good AI and thus I suggested an armor upgrade. Why make another unit that would handle infantry if that's entirely not what USF struggles with?

This argument seems to prove that people do not treat the Pershing as a Heavy AT.

yes, the pershing's current role lean toward anti-infantry.

yes, the pershing's current role lean toward anti-infantry.

So that's why people refrain from using it. Well giving a super AI focused faction another tool for battling inf smells a bit fishy, don't you think? For a long time prior to its release people wanted Pershing sooo much. And that was not because they could not handle German infantry. It was the AT late game which was supposed to be somewhat "fixed", so to speak.

Pershing was clearly supposed to be an AT vehicle with perfect AI capabilities. I would bet that many allied players would trade that AI advantage for AT capabilities - more health.

One might also argue that: "No! Pershing also has the HVAP shell and Tiger does not!" That thing costs a fortune! Plus you have to hit with it as it's not the same as Jackson's HVAP ammo. With the upgrade available - you could rarely use both the super expensive HP upgrade and the HVAP shell. Having the upgrade would significantly prolong the ability to use HVAP due to obvious muni bleed.

There were much more Pershings in Europe than there were Ostwinds and Jagtigers in existance.

But of course those among a few others just pass under the radar.

Both the Tiger 1 and the M26 deserve some buffs in their current situations.

Yeah, problem is that among 40 ostwinds and 88 Jagdtigers all were engaged in combat, while among 310 pershings in europe, only 20 saw battle. They were also never used in battle against japs. That short, early series of 20 pershings justifies the usage of pershing in game though. That's what I ment by few battle usages.

Yeah, problem is that among 40 ostwinds and 88 Jagdtigers all were engaged in combat, while among 310 pershings in europe, only 20 saw battle. They were also never used in battle against japs. That short, early series of 20 pershings justifies the usage of pershing in game though. That's what I ment by few battle usages.

If by "engaged in combat" you mean easily destroyed/ignored. Isn't the Comet another paper tank that never saw combat in WWII?

If by "engaged in combat" you mean easily destroyed/ignored. Isn't the Comet another paper tank that never saw combat in WWII?

Comet was used in combat but it's true that it was used even less than pershing. Together with sturmtiger and bergetiger (from coh1) these 3 vehicles fight for the title of least battle used vehicle that is a unit in coh franchise. The bergetiger wins here most probably.

Among other two - the comet was used only in one operation, but in high numbers, while sturmtiger was very rare (18 build) and not useful in typical combat situations but was in service for a long time. That means it's hard to say which one has seen more action.